J-A03001-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
LISA MORGAN, SURVIVING CO- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
EXECUTRIX AND CO-TRUSTEE UNDER PENNSYLVANIA
THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
DECEASED
Appellee
v.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
Appellant No. 730 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Civil Division at No(s): 2014-7108
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 03, 2017
Robert M. Mumma, II, appeals from the order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, sustaining Appellee’s preliminary
objections and dismissing Mumma’s complaint with prejudice, based, inter
alia, on the complaint’s failure to conform to the rules of civil procedure.
Upon review of Mumma’s appellate brief, we are constrained to quash
the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In all respects, the brief fails to
conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, the brief does not
contain: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) a statement of the order or
other determination in question; (3) a statement of the scope and standard
of review; (4) a statement of the questions involved; (5) a statement of the
case; or (6) a summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111. In addition,
J-A03001-17
the “argument” section of Mumma’s brief consists of two one-sentence
paragraphs in which he baldly states, without citation to authority, that his
complaint should not have been stricken with prejudice. Mumma fails to
develop any legal argument whatsoever and, accordingly, has waived all
appellate issues. See Commonwealth v. Clayton, 816 A.2d 217 (Pa.
2002) (“[I]t is a well settled principle of appellate jurisprudence that
undeveloped claims are waived and unreviewable on appeal.”).
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/3/2017
-2-
Lisa Morgan, Surviving Co-Exec. v. Mumma, R., II
Combined Opinion